A limited edition high output grand national... that car kicked a$$ in the 80"s..

 

Until about the year 2000, the 1987 Buick GNX was the fastest production sedan ever built. (it's debatable, in particular because the Regal only had two doors, but if we accept that it's a production sedan, it's a solid claim). 13.4@104 through the quarter. It had a claimed (underrated) 276hp and 360lb-ft of torque out of a turbo 3.8L V6. (The regular Grand National had 245/355). It had a McLaren-tuned motor, a ceramic turbo impeller. It also had a much beefier rear suspension, and a few other tweaks.

The GNX build team picked 547 random 1987 Buick Grand Nationals off the production line and made these changes. Every single one is numbered, and a real one will (among other things) display it's number on the GNX badge by the glovebox.

 

James, don't worry about your 10bolt until you get into the low 10's or low 1.5 to 1.4 60' range. Unless you put a M6 in your car it will be fine. I have been racing my car for years and only broke one posi. that had over 100kmiles and a ton of passes. I have always had a 3k or bigger converter and leave with the n2o in first gear as soon as the car launchs. My car ran 1.51 60', 10.20's@132mph on the stock 10bolt with 3.42's, GM posi and 26x10" ET drags. I decided to buy a killer TH350 that has a T-brake so I decided to upgrade to a 8.8 Ford Hybrid rear( my stock rear is still in perfect working condition in my shop). But I still haven't gotten to use the T-brake b/c of traction issues(ET street radials). I saw a few cars at the Thunder shootout running deep 10's and even a 9sec. LS1 car on the stock 10bolt with factory 3.23's in it. I think people have more trouble with lower aftermarket gears like 3.73's and 4.10's then anythiong else failing. Goodluck. later Clint

 

11.24 w/a cc306? Do you have ported heads?

 

Not offended at all!

I was simply stating my opinion of GM cars as a whole.

Working in the car business, I have seen alot of the newer GM as well as other manufacturers cars' and I was basicly saying I thought "older GM stuff was better.

Example:
Less Computer crap ( I know alot of it is Gov. mandated).
Better designs in looks and not making their whole line of vehicles resemble each other.

and so . Like I said, just my opinion.

Not to mention the GN rearend is larger causing the driveshaft to be different in length.

you're cool with all that you said.

One last thing, not trying to change the topic here either.

 

Check it out, there used to be a setup made by southside machine in ??? anyways, the kit was a set up that eliminated your torque arm by turning it into a 4 link like used in a GN, t-type or a newer caprice, if you got guts, you can cut up your bod in the back end to make up mounts to go to that type of suspension, I am in fact right now poindering the same thing, I need to remember the LCA points on the axle, spring perches, axle width, then the location of the upper arm mounts in the body, then that means duplicating the geometry in a GN or a newer caprice/Impala SS or maybe you can use this project to maximize geometry? it is what I am going to look into. it is a lot of work compared to the 12 bolt or 9 inch, but it would be a benefit due to a cheaper axle, and removing stress off your transmissions tail, just an idea, if it works it works, just takes alot to get you there.

 

I hope you aren't gonna run an extreme chassis 8.8. I finally got rid of mine, nothing but trouble for me.

 

Is your name uncle Rico?
"Man, if I could go back to 1987..."

 

the gn's,syclones and typhoons came with 8.5'' much stronger than the 7-5/8 rear if you look at the covers you will see the difference,the real shame of it is gm installed the 8.5'' rear end in the 4.3L 5spd s-series trucks and not the f-bodies,we have the same type rear that came in the 4cyl.vega of the 70s era,talk about goin backwards..more hp/tq less axle strength..the 74-81f-bodies have the 8.5'' rears in them and they only had 175hp,i don't get it but they screwed us on that aspect.
when you start really layin the power down;60' times in the 1.6 and better you will definately be on borrowed time with the 7-5/8 rear.you can help save it by being gentle on the burnout get tires spinning and spin to the line trying to not allow the tires to chirp on decel,no dry hops etc...will help but not cure the problem.
i really wish they would have kept the australian 9-bolt 87-90 we pounded the one in my buddies TTA it ran 10.77 @126 w/1.43 60's it finally gave out the carrier EXPLODED after 170+passes running 10.77-11.40

 

oh yeah, another thing if you are gonna switch out, 9 in, 10 or 12 bolt whatever, don't forget traction control or abs, the way they recieve signal may not be the same as your car so can it be adapted? or maybe not?

 

Exactly!! Less contact patch means more stress over a smaller area!

 

My Blazer ZR2 is factory-equipped with an 8.5" rear w/ Eaton locker. Too bad the Camaro isn't similarly equipped!

 

Well, I know that the Firehawk in 2002 had a rear spoiler that was "inspired" by the IROC series. I only saw one of those races on tv and thought it was pretty cool to see all the T/As out there. But anyway, yeah, the 02 Hawk has a weird deck spoiler with LEDs. It's kind of hard to explain so here's a pic

http://www.firehawk.org/article/1635.html

I'm not a fan, no disrepsect to those who have it.

 

I hate abs and traction control(car doesnt have it though) so that would be an upgrade for me.

Clint, i have 4.10s but the thing for me is im at high altitude so 400 horse feels like 350 or so...kinda the only plus about being up higher and running slower.

 

, I am showing my ignorance here... Uncle Rico ...

In 87, I did not have my licence yet but two years later ...

How could I have forgotten the Cyclone and Typhoon,
GM was good, back then !